On September 2, 2015 2:12:33 AM GMT+02:00, Gregory Nowak wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 01:59:55AM +0200, poitr pogo wrote:
>> i'm against moderation.
I'm against allowing enemies to sit at a campfire of refugees that have just
been kicked out of their home.
>I also realize I'm not the owner
Le 01/09/2015 04:10, Isaac Dunham a écrit :
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 09:38:12AM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
Sorry, this thread became private my my mis-clicking on Icedove.
Le 30/08/2015 22:37, Isaac Dunham a écrit :
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 12:58:59PM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 28/08/2015
Didier Kryn wrote:
> I am pretty sure there are very few cases where a wifi connection needs a
> static IP config. For the vast majority of cases, the config is dynamic and
> one single id_str is enough for all; doing otherwise would bloat the
> interfaces file for the sole sake of this descri
Tobias Hunger writes:
[...]
>> on the same grounds, because systemd covers so much ground
>> and does so many things (that *it should not* be doing) that any good
>> engineer who wants to design an alternative will see a lot of insane
>> features and immediately say "Nope, I'm not doing that, it
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 10:05:11 +0100
Simon Hobson wrote:
> > I am pretty sure there are very few cases where a wifi connection needs a
> > static IP config. For the vast majority of cases, the config is dynamic and
> > one single id_str is enough for all; doing otherwise would bloat the
> > inter
Hi all,
I think, I found an alternative to multithreading in netman. This is
using interprocess communication, although what I have in mind may not
be proper interprocess communication.
The idea is this: the backend would be converted into some sort of a
daemon exporting one function and importin
Am Mittwoch, 2. September 2015 schrieb Edward Bartolo:
> Hi all,
>
> I think, I found an alternative to multithreading in netman. This is
> using interprocess communication, although what I have in mind may not
> be proper interprocess communication.
>
> The idea is this: the backend would be con
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 10:09:40AM +0200, Jaromil wrote:
> > Speaking of which, my patch for "nodm" is online at [1].
> Great :^) I hope Enrico has time to have a look and perhaps include the
> patch upstream.
Unfortunately, most likely I will not: I only have time to work on nodm
when a customer
Hi,
Thanks for the reply. If Unix Domain Sockets can do the job nicely,
why not? However, I will wait for other replies for their opinion.
Thanks.
On 02/09/2015, dr.kl...@gmx.at wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 2. September 2015 schrieb Edward Bartolo:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I think, I found an alternative to m
Edward Bartolo writes:
[...]
> The idea is this: the backend would be converted into some sort of a
> daemon exporting one function and importing another one. The frontend
> would use the exported function from the backend to send it commands.
> The backend would do the same thing with the expor
Quote: "This means the GUI/ frontend
either needs to handle SIGCHLD in order to get notified when a child
process terminates so that a suitable wait call (which doubtlessly exists in the
Free Pascal libraries) can be used to get rid of the zombie without
having to wait for it or (the by far most si
I found this code in gensigset.inc and signals.inc fpc source library.
Is this what we are talking about?
function FPSigaction(
sig: cint;
act: psigactionrec;
oact: psigactionrec
):cint;
function fpsigemptyset(var nset : tsigset):cint;
var i :longint;
Begin
for i:=0 to wordsinsigset-1 DO
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 11:47:34 +0100
Edward Bartolo wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think, I found an alternative to multithreading in netman. This is
> using interprocess communication, although what I have in mind may not
> be proper interprocess communication.
>
> The idea is this: the backend would be
What about multithreading? Should I do away with it and let the
frontend monitor for zombies to call waitpid?
Edward
On 02/09/2015, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 11:47:34 +0100
> Edward Bartolo wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I think, I found an alternative to multithreading in netman. This
Personally, I'd go way out of my way never to multithread unless
there were a huge reason to do so. Your app does such a small, quick
job that there's no reason.
You mentioned the front and back end communicating with each other, and
everyone mentioned fifos. I agree. And if there's a reason f
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 10:05:01AM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 01/09/2015 04:10, Isaac Dunham a écrit :
> >I simply would like to write to the file without *losing* all the comments
> >that are there, which is what will happen if you use
> > wpa_cli save_config
> >or similar features in wpa_gui
On 09/02/2015 10:27 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
> Personally, I'd go way out of my way never to multithread unless
> there were a huge reason to do so. Your app does such a small, quick
> job that there's no reason.
>
> You mentioned the front and back end communicating with each other,
> and everyo
I am trying to reap zombies. The "while(fpwaitpid" pascal code is
freezing my application.
*
procedure handle_sigchld(sig: longint; info: psiginfo; context:
psigcontext); cdecl;
var
Status: cint;
a_pid: pid_t;
begi
18 matches
Mail list logo
